Redbridge - 53j failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone

Hi folks,

We recieved this PCN in the post yesterday for 53j failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.

Any advice or grounds for appeal here?





Some images from the Redbridge portal. Their is also a video but I don't quite know how to embed it here.

Part of your appeal argument should centre on the absolutely grotesque height of the two signs.  I would think these impossible to see from a normal vehicle, as they are at first floor height of the houses.  They turn "inadequate" into an art form !

However, this would seem to be a recent restriction, because GSV latest view of 2025 shows no restrictions at all. We need to know your approach, (it looks like you turned left into the restriction, but only the video will show the movement. I tried to view it on the Redbridge website, but nothing happens when I press the Send button. for your approach, we need to know if there is an advance sign. If you are able to return to the site we need to see what is there on approach and when you turn, from a driver viewpoint.

I have recently successfully argued that the blue sign is superfluous and confusing as it adds to the plurality of the signage. It is totally unnecessary.

Part of your appeal argument should centre on the absolutely grotesque height of the two signs.  I would think these impossible to see from a normal vehicle, as they are at first floor height of the houses.  They turn "inadequate" into an art form !

However, this would seem to be a recent restriction, because GSV latest view of 2025 shows no restrictions at all. We need to know your approach, (it looks like you turned left into the restriction, but only the video will show the movement. I tried to view it on the Redbridge website, but nothing happens when I press the Send button. for your approach, we need to know if there is an advance sign. If you are able to return to the site we need to see what is there on approach and when you turn, from a driver viewpoint.

Thank you for the feedback 
I will make my way to the location tomorrow morning and take some more photos leading up to the turn.

Here are some additional photos of the location. I have tried to sequence them.

@Hippocrates @Incandescent
Any feedback on the additional photo evidence above?

Bumping this. @Hippocrates @Incandescent any thoughts?

Bumping this. @Hippocrates @Incandescent any thoughts?

Your 2nd and 3rd photos show an advance sign on your route to where your turned into the restriction. This diminishes the strength of an appeal based on the height of the restriction signs, so if you took it to London Tribunals, you might not win.

@Incandescent
Thank you for you reply. The driver is adamant that they did not see the advance warning sign.

@Hippocrates @Incandescent
I have drafted an appeal based on your feedback - could this make for a decent defence? Any advice?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I make representations against this PCN on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur, because the restriction was not adequately signed.

1. Entry signs mounted at an unreasonable height.
The two signs at the entrance to the restricted road are fixed at approximately first-floor height on the adjoining buildings, well above a driver’s normal line of sight. They are not conspicuous and cannot reasonably be seen by a driver turning into the road, contrary to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and the Traffic Signs Manual.

2. Inadequate advance warning.
The only advance sign is at the start of preceding road, immediately beyond the end of the double yellow lines. Parking is lawful from that point, and there is ample kerb space for a vehicle, including a high-top or mid-top van, to park directly in front of the sign and screen it from approaching drivers. The driver did not see the sign. No further sign or repeater is provided at the roundabout/junction where the turn into the restricted road is made, which is where a driver must decide on their route. The council’s footage does not show the advance sign or the driver’s approach to it, so the council has no evidence that the sign was visible to the driver at the material time. A restriction that depends on a single advance sign, positioned where it can easily be obscured and remote from the decision point, does not give drivers adequate information.

3. Confusing and unnecessary signage.
The additional blue sign is superfluous and adds to a plurality of signs at the entrance. It clutters the message rather than clarifying it.

I therefore ask that the PCN be cancelled. Please also provide:

• the Traffic Management Order and signage plan for this location
• the full video footage, and any footage the council relies on showing the approach to the restricted road
• any evidence the council holds that the advance sign was visible to drivers on the approach